The Nice Treaty will contribute significantly to a growing militarisation of the European Union, argues Andy Storey
The electorate could be forgiven for thinking military issues are not relevant to the upcoming re-run of the Nice Treaty referendum, or even, if the Government line is to believed, that the best way to guarantee a non-militaristic Irish policy is to vote Yes. In fact, the Nice Treaty has important things to say about Ireland, the EU and military matters, which is why there remain good reasons for voting No.
The Nice Treaty does not make the EU a military organisation, but it does significantly contribute to a growing militarisation of the Union. Article 1.5 of the treaty states that a new Political and Security Committee "shall exercise political control and strategic direction of crisis management operations". This committee will specifically control and direct the emerging European Rapid Reaction Force (ERRF), a 60,000-strong EU force that is expected to become operational next year. Ireland will contribute 850 troops to that force, and the government is spending over €230 million on equipment and infrastructure to prepare for ERRF participation.
Article 1.2 of the treaty deletes references - present in previous treaties - to the Western European Union (a subset of EU members, not including Ireland). The WEU was previously charged with EU military policy, and deletion of references to it therefore formally confirms, for the first time, the assumption by the EU, in its own right, of responsibility for military affairs.
This emerging EU military role will be forged in close co-operation with the nuclear-armed North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO).
This EU-NATO collaboration was very evident during the 2001 Macedonian crisis. Unfortunately, it was NATO's earlier intervention (regrettably endorsed by the EU) in relation to Kosovo in 1999 that helped spark the conflict in neighbouring Macedonia.
NATO's Kosovo bombing campaign caused Amnesty International to explicitly state that NATO actions constituted war crimes. The NATO bombardment may have killed up to 1,500 civilians, not counting those subsequently killed by initially unexploded cluster bombs.
Some of the people trained by NATO forces as part of the Kosovo campaign subsequently went on to become engaged in insurgency in Macedonia. As research prepared for Afri by Marianne Osborn points out, the later EU-NATO intervention in Macedonia (in 2001) may have helped avert full-scale civil war there, but only after NATO had helped cause the problem in the first place.
Osborn argues the EU and NATO have opted for "quick-fix" solutions in Macedonia that do not address underlying problems, and that they have been motivated, not by altruism, but by their self-interested determination to create roles for themselves.
Osborn concludes: "By aligning itself so closely with NATO the EU will have to adapt the prevalent approach to crisis management in the Balkans, which sees the deployment of heavily armed foreign troops as essential for 'imposing peace' on the countries in the region. Thus, the [EU policy] will not provide any viable alternative to the current practices of international intervention in the Balkans. The presence of foreign troops, international governors and imposed peace agreements does not have the ability to deliver sustainable peace to any of these countries, as is evident from the experience of Bosnia and Kosovo".
This is the self-serving and probably counter-productive approach to international "security" Ireland is now buying into. But, a reader may well ask, is it the case that the declarations attached to the Nice Treaty at the Seville Summit in June 2002 ensure the Irish government cannot participate in specific actions undertaken by the EU or NATO that we do not agree with?
The declarations claim Ireland will only contribute to ERRF Operations when they have a UN mandate, and when the particular Irish contribution is approved by both the government and the Dáil. This, unfortunately, does not solve the problem.
A declaration is a statement of intent that has no binding legal status. A declaration attached to a treaty does not alter the provisions of the treaty one iota. As for government and Dáil veto power, the government can decide as it pleases, and it has a Dáil majority so it can assure parliamentary approval for anything it wants.
The present coalition Government has already granted US forces overflight facilities and the use of Shannon airport (including for the bombing of Afghanistan). In March 2002, the Taoiseach assured President Bush that Ireland would assist the US "in every way open to us". At present US troops are being transported through Shannon airport as part of preparations for war on Iraq - a war opposed by Irish voters by a margin of two to one.
These are not ERRF operations, but what the Government is clearly indicating is that it would commit Ireland to any military adventure, regardless of international law or the wishes of the Irish people. This demonstrates what a declaration about prior government and Dáil approval for an Irish contribution to an ERRF operation is worth.
The Government claims the Seville declarations make clear that Ireland is not signing up to a mutual defence commitment through the Nice Treaty. This is correct: we are not obliged to help defend another EU state that comes under attack, but nothing in the Nice Treaty ever said we would be.
What the treaty does enshrine, as described above, are the political arrangements for Irish participation in a force - the ERRF - that will operate up to 4,000 kilometres outside the borders of the EU, with Irish troops operating offensively (not defensively) alongside troops from other EU countries and in cooperation with NATO.
Kosovo and Macedonia provide us with models for what that type of operation will look like. Nothing in the Seville Declarations (even if they did have any legal status) rules this out.
We can and should vote against the Nice Treaty again on the grounds that we are opposed to the militarisation of the EU and to enhanced partnership with NATO.
To oppose the currently dominant EU-NATO approach to "security", and to begin the process of promoting genuine security through greater attention to conflict prevention and peace-building activities, would be a greater service to prospective new EU members than would ratification of the Nice Treaty.
Andy Storey is chairman of Afri